Vbera Technologies Pvt. Ltd vs. Board Of Directors Of Bank Of Baroda

ITEM NO.51

COURT NO.6

SECTION IX

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)Nos.19696-19697/2023

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and orders dated 20-07-2023 in WPL No. 9116/2023 20-07-2023 in IA(L) No. 12380/2023 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay)

LATIF YUSUF MANIKKOTH

Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE BANK OF BARODA & ORS. Respondent $(s)$

( IA No. 198001/2023 - AMENDMENT OF APPEAL / PETITION / I.A. IA No. 180106/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

WITH

SLP(C) No. 19715-19716/2023 (IX) ( IA No.180183/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.180185/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

SLP(C) No. 21175/2023 (IX) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.193894/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING <pre>C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)</pre>

Date : 20-10-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI

For Petitioner(s)	Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara, Adv.
	Ms. Usha Nandini V., AOR
	Ms. Maria Nedumpara, Adv.
	Mr. Maria Nedumpara, Adv.
	Ms. Hemali Kurne, Adv.
	Ms. Rohini Amin, Adv.
	Mr. Shameem Fayiz, Adv.
	Mr. Bhupinder Singh Munday, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
$2022 - 10.20$	<sup>16.09</sup> F <sup>16.09</sup> F <sup>16.09</sup> Respondent(s) Mr. Avinash Kr. Lakhanpal, AOR
	Mr. S K Singhi, Adv.
	Mr. Piyush Lakhanpal, Adv.

Mr. Ankur Singhi, Adv.

Mr. Akshay Singhi, Adv. Ms. Akshaya Puthran, Adv. Ms. Sindhuja Rastogi, Adv. Ms. Anika Bajpai, Adv. Ms. Sneha Singh, Adv. Mr. Navin Kumar, Adv. Ms. Priti, Adv. Mr. Pallav Saxena, Adv. Ms. Shweta K., Adv. Ms. Kheyali Singh, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

SLP(C)Nos.19696-19697/2023 & 19715-19716/2023

List on 30.10.2023.

SLP(C) No. 21175/2023

The present petition has been brought assailing an order passed by the High Court of judicature at Bombay on 05.09.2023 in relation to the petitioners' challenge to a recovery proceeding under the SARFAESI Act. What is assailed in this proceeding is an interim order passed in the main writ petition, which is pending before the High Court. The order passed on 05.09.2023 records:

"2. We fail to understand why the Petitioners are moving the Court at the last minute seeking stay of the possession. It is highly unfair for the Petitioners to move the Court on the very day when possession is to be taken and when they had notice that possession would be taken today, as far back as on 14th August, 2023. We therefore are not incline to grant any stay of possession. 3. Since the above Writ Petition raises issue of what would be the protection given to the borrowers by virtue of the provisions of the MSME Act, 2006, and which larger issue has already been heard by us and reserved for orders, this Petition will also have to abide by that decision. If we find favour with the argument of Mr.Nedumpara in all those matters that the banks could not have taken any proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, or any other recovery proceedings because of the provisions of the MSME Act, 2006, then naturally wherever possession is taken, the same would be restored back to the borrowers. Once this is the position, we are not inclined to grant any further protection.

4. List the above Writ Petition on board for admission on 26th September, 2023.

5. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order."

Mr. Nedumpara, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argues that till judgment is delivered by the High Court, in a batch of petitions (Which has been referred to in the impugned order), no further proceeding ought to take place under the SARFAESI Act and the properties secured for obtaining financial facilities ought not to be interfered with. So far as the present proceeding is concerned, loan was taken on 31.05.2014 and the borrowers did not represent themselves as an MSME, as per the lending bank. Mr. Nedumpara's submission, however, is that the borrowers had the character of an MSME much earlier.

Before this Court, however, Mr. Nedumpara has confined his submission only on the point that since the High Court is seisin over the matter and judgment is to be delivered, no step ought to be taken by the Bank in pursuance of a Section 14 proceeding of the SARFAESI Act. Thus, we are not examining in this proceeding the

3

questions relating to the date of acquisition of the MSME status by the borrowers (petitioners) or its impact on SARFAESI proceeding. In the order impugned, we find that the petitioners has been given sufficient protection. This is an order interim in nature pending final outcome.

In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. However, Mr. Nedumpara's client(s) shall be at liberty to apply before the High Court for any order as may be permissible in law as the matter is pending there.

The present petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(NIRMALA NEGI) (VIDYA NEGI)

COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR